danmoore80

Find and quote any reputable scientist that claims "there are fossils that prove macroevolution"

I will agree that you may in fact get multiple layers of ash in an area of close proximity to the volcano itself, but that's about it. It is not going to be seen throught the earth. Can you support that any of the subperiod's were made of volcanic ash?

How far would that level extend from the center of the volcano? I don't think it would be far enough to constitute a "layer"

Wouldn't this be contradictory to the Geologic Table?

I would agree that to discredit evolution completely would be incorrect. I do believe in a form of "evolution" as it is stated scientifically, and that is microevolution. Microevolution has been proven on many occasion, and I do not have a problem with that. I dont' really like the name, because it has "evoluiton" in it, but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, Macroevoluiton has no grounds. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am just stating a scientific fact. And for those who say "there is evidence of Macroevolution" look at Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer for proof of such. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

I'm not asking for an argument. I would just like an evolutionist view on the subject. Last I checked this was a "Science" forum.

"If you look at the world, you will see fossilized wood, petrified wood, standing up running through multiple layers." "Sometimes petrified trees are found standing upside down running through many rock layers. They certainly didn’t grow upside down and the layers cannot be different ages. " Dr. Kent Hovind http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC1100W1.htm What do you think?

Yes. Scientifically.

No. He said that it has not been rewritten becuase there was no new evidence to put in. Not that any had been disproved. Goodnight and God Bless

I can agree to some extent. What I am trying to convey, is that Evolution is being taught in elementary schools as a proven fact, something that is concrete. And it is not. Were you ever taught about creationism? More than likely you were not. Most are taught from the time they can remember that for instance, "Dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago". Not that some believe dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. One thing that is kinda interesting is that for arguments sake, let's say that I am a complete moron which some have already concluded. I believe then in a religion that is taking me nowhere and when I die I am just going to be recycled into the earth. No big deal, that's where we all will be. But on the other hand, what if I'm right. This leads to an alternate ending that without salvation is going to be quite unpleasant. I hate to leave it like this, but I have to get up pretty early in the morning for work, and I sure most are tired of me posting anyway. Goodnight, and God Bless.

Through historical evidence, through using time and space, not one single claim that the Bible makes has ever been proved wrong. Are you missing the point?

Once again I hate to brake the news, but I have yet to meet a Scientist that has concluded what you just have. They state that they have support for their claim, but not that Science has proved without a doubt the existence of evolution. You may well be the next Nobel Peace Prize Winner!!!!! Congradulations

If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case – always, for nothing simply remains nothing – forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” – applied to the same object, at the same time – are mutually exclusive terms. Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always? In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight. Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature. Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes – what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit? The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist. Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself. In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material – which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) – an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being. Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS.

Then at least one part of the Bible would have been disproved by now would'nt you think?

weak. So are you agreeing then, that the Bible, thus far, has never been proved wrong?